Posts Tagged ‘Scalia’

I lived through the eight miserable years of Obamunist tyranny. I lived through the eight years where a party that calls itself “Democratic” demonstrated again and again that it had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with “democracy.” I lived through the mainstream media gang-piling on anyone who in any way didn’t support Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s radical agenda as “obstructionists” and yes, even as “terrorists.” Not to mention bigots and racists and every other hateful name under the sun.

For the Democrats, Barack Obama was “our president,” the “President of the United States of America.” And Republicans OWED him their full loyalty and support.

Amazingly, six “journalists” were among the rioters. Because according to the mainstream media, to be a “journalist” today means to be a propagandist hack who rabidly hates Donald Trump and tries to ignite and incite mass violence against him. Let’s be clear, they weren’t cleared of rioting because they didn’t riot; they were cleared of rioting because they were “journalists” and therefore allowed to riot.

“Based on the facts and circumstances, we determined that probable cause existed to support the filing of felony rioting charges,” said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in a statement about the 230 arrested. The office, which enforces criminal laws in Washington, D.C., would not comment on the actions of the six journalists.

In the same way, I remember the day AFTER the Obama inauguration when a million angry activist showed up to protest the very Obama presidency.

Oh, wait. That was Democrats too.

And I remember how Republicans employed every single vile trick that doesn’t exist in any playbook but the devil’s to obstruct and block President Obama from being able to appoint his cabinent because, after all, Republicans are obstructionists, right???

Oh, crap. No. Geez, I’m sorry. Republicans had most of Obama’s administration in their positions right away. That spirit of obstructionism and treason where a party that has been voted out of power tries to block every single thing the elected president tries to do is the spirit of Butthurt Nazism a.k.a. the Democratic Party. It’s Democrats who are blocking and obstructing. And Democrats, being Democrats, are the ones taking partisan, obstructionist, butthurt Nazi hissy fit to a new level: they are now refusing to do their basic job and even bother to show up at committee hearings. Because to be a Democrat is to say, “If I violate the Constitution, If I violate the legitimate political process, if I violate the will of the people, I’ll get my wicked way.”

But let’s get back to Obama and the vile, vicious tactics that he inspired as our nations very first “community organizer” president.

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

But the Democratic Party went über-fascist radical, and thus the toxic, divisive, polarizing Obama became the nominee of the Democratic Party and ultimately the president. And the similarly über-fascist radical Joe Biden became vice president; and then the likewise über-fascist radical Hillary Clinton would sure-enough be the following rabid candidate for the Democrat Party machine.

So it’s morally evil now to do what Obama did, you see. Obama ought to be able to do it and get away with it, and later on when it becomes politically inconvenient, well, Obama ought to be able to retreat behind a press secretary mouthpiece and say that he now regrets it. Such that Republicans have no right to do exactly what Obama himself did.

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993. So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it was when our Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama demanded the divine right to replace conservative Scalia with a leftist of his choice – rather Biden said the Democrat garbage tactic applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

Only Democrats are hypocrite enough to not be able to see what abject hypocrite roaches they are.

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

Let me keep going from my same article on just what hypocrite pieces of dishonest roach filth Democrats are:

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show. No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them. Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch. And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

Who “fundamentally transformed” “nearly all of the Senate’s history”??? Don’t EVER forget it was the DEMOCRATS. Just as it was the DEMOCRATS who invented Borking and it was the DEMOCRATS who are the ones who actually FILIBUSTER judicial appointments. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH did NOT have a Republican filibuster. The ONLY two judges sitting on the court who didn’t receive sixty votes are Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Because the Democrat Party has been the official party of Butthurt for decades.

If you want to see what “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” truly looks like, look at what Democrats have done since Trump got elected. These butthurt fascists are psychologically unhinged with rabid acts of “obstruction” taking place at every corner that no, you demon-possessed liars, the Republicans NEVER did.

It’s really not the “nuclear option”; it’s the “Harry Reid option”; it’s the “Democrat Party option.” And it is a GOOD thing Republicans are now willing to use the same tactics Democrats used against them. And it’s an evil, wicked thing that the mainstream media is FINALLY seeing this as an “extreme tactic” given that they somehow failed to think that way when their beloved Democrat Party was using the tactic to impose their will when THEY ran Washington.

And so, in that same vein, Charles Schumer – now the leader of the Democrat minority – controls a party that literally announced they were going to object to ANYONE Trump nominated simply because on their view, anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do is “unqualified” to serve.

Democrats actually swore they would filibuster Trump’s nominee even before Trump nominated anyone.

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court. But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is that now you get to eat Republican fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite butthurt LIARS.

When Barack Obama – after trying to community organize a filibuster against Bush SCOTUS appointees – appointed two far-left liberal progressive radicals to the Court, Republicans responded by allowing their nomination to go forward and even allowing their members to vote for her in a spirit of bipartisan compromise. Because they believed a president ought to have a right to nominate judges out of his philosophy, especially on the Supreme Court, even when they personally disagree with those judges’ philosophy of jurisprudence.

So Democrats never had to exploit their own Harry Reid-invented “Democrat option” – a.k.a. the nuclear option – to get a vote for Obama’s SCOTUS picks because Republicans respected the process in a way that Democrats have now proven over and over again they are not capable of respecting. It was Democrats who invented and then repeatedly used the politics of personal slander-destruction against Republican nominees.

Democrats are not human beings worthy of the name; they have abandoned as a matter of wicked philosophy any concept of the imago dei. Democrats are evolved bugs, and they only capable of bug morality. You could rescue a cockroach, nurture it back to health, feed it, but the moment it was time to reciprocate, that roach would happily EAT YOU ALIVE.

Democrats are people who will say one thing with a self-righteous frenzied rabidity. How DARE you not support our president? And then – because abject moral HYPOCRISY is the defining trait of every single Democrat in America – they will just as self-righteously and with just as much frenzied rabidity go back on everything they said when it had been convenient for them to say it.

Conservatives, and just plain ordinary decent people, have got to rise up the way our forefathers rose up against this kind of evil. And yes, we have to be willing to fight these people on their own vicious terms. You tried to bring hell to us, and it is past time for us to bring hell home to you Democrats where it truly belongs.

One of the things that most offends me is that, if Republicans win, we install judges who actually follow the Constitution. But if Democrats win, they install judges who will read their extreme political agendas into every law they want to. That’s kind of analogous to a football game where one team got to use machine guns against the other team; it creates a rather unequal playing field. Justice Scalia described this history and issued a warning some years back:

He added that the role of a Supreme Court justice should be interpreting the law, not inventing it.

“Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution,” he said.

Discussing pro-abortion judges who created a right to abortion, Scalia warned her, “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.”

Why shouldn’t an arch-conservative justice not be able to impose a terrible law out of an immoral philosophy the way liberal judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did???

That regret Scalia described needs to start happening now. Democrats need to be viciously punched hard in the face with their own system of interpretation that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that means whatever the hell the most rabid right wing judge WANTS it to mean. When you have one side telling the other that a woman has the right to murder a man’s child and that man has no right whatsoever to stop it but has to support that child if the “mother” somehow doesn’t murder her own child; when you have one side telling the other that homosexuals and transgenders have every right in the book but Christians don’t even have the right to live according to their most deeply held morality according to a Bible that defined our entire civilization for two thousand years – all in rabid violation of every sacred Constitutional principle – something truly depraved and evil has occurred. And it’s long past time to STOP it. Thomas Jefferson WARNED this would happen. And tragically the ONLY way to stop it now is to start fighting fire with fire: If a few right wing justices truly begin to show up who read their OWN intent into the Constitution the way liberal judges have done for decades, it will be the equivalent of what happened when the Allies started reciprocating with the same poison gas the Germans had inflicted on them, such that they both agree to cease-and-desist.

I would submit that we pass a law today that when Donald Trump is out of office, the next president will not have to face the kind of garbage that I have documented above. That any Senator who tries to Bork or Thomas a nominee for the Supreme Court will go to prison and face hard time for abusing the power of the office through slander; to pass a law banning the filibuster or the nuclear option; to ban executive orders that defy the law and the clear intent of the Congress that alone is supposed to have the power to make the law, the way Obama kept imposing; that sort of thing. I believe we should pass a constitutional amendment limiting the time of a Supreme Court appointment to a specified period of years. And I say “After Trump” because Obama got to enjoy this power for eight years, and it is only fair and legitimate that the people that Democrats pissed on get to piss on them now.

I WARNED you liberal progressives that eventually a right wing president would come along who would make you scream in anguish; I IMPLORED you to stop being naked fascists. But for eight years you allowed Obama to ram his agenda through by imperia fiat. And now the shoe is on the other foot, because to quote Obama, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, WE won.” And so if President Donald Trump issues the following two executive orders: one declaring the Democratic Party is the party of treason and terrorism; and the other being the “Hunt Every Democrat Down with Dogs and Burn Them ALIVE Act,” then you shouldn’t even have the damn right to request an extension to the two-minute head start before we unleash the dogs.

Megyn Kelly stated Thursday evening on The Kelly File that she can find no instance in history where a sitting president of the United States has failed to attend the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It’s an unprecedented move on the part of Obama, who once again fails to uphold his duty as president, represent the country and set an example for the American people.

“If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with.”

The first American president to shirk attending a funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice (while demanding he be able to replace that Justice on the Court). All I can say is that I suppose history continues unbroken – BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT; HE IS AN UNAMERICAN PRESIDENT.

An incredibly Obama has said over and over since Scalia’s death that he has the right and the duty to nominate a replacement for Scalia.

That’s actually technically true, and all sides affirm that fact. But Obama had every bit as much of a right and a duty to honor the Justice he was demanding to replace at his funeral.

And since Obama callously and cynically and decisively shirked that particular right and duty, the United States Senate – which has the right and duty to “advise and consent” on ANY presidential nomination, has the right and duty to ADVISE Obama NOT to exploit this death by nominating anyone and the right and duty to absolutely REFUSE to consent to anybody Obama nominates.

The SAME Constitution that gives a president the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy gives the Senate the right to say, “Up yours!” to a presidential nomination.

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

So all you’ve got to do is just refer to this as “the Biden Rule.” But it’s a rule and it was started by Democrats. And now they’re screaming at us for following THEIR rules.

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And oh, I can go on. The Democratic Party is the party that turned the name of a Supreme Court nominee into a verb by so utterly pouring out their demonic hate to poison the nomination that the process became known as “Borking.” It had never been done before the Party of Cockroach Fascism started it. This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court. But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

Obama admitted that Roberts was eminently qualified. He praised him highly.

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law…”

But, no he wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.

“I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination.”

In short, Obama chose to vote against Roberts because of his perceived conservative politics. Nothing else.

Republicans have the SAME right and duty to reject any judge Obama nominates simply because they don’t agree with Obama’s “overarching political philosophy.” Period.

Democrats are abject, disgusting, despicable hypocrite vermin. And their past actions need to now catch up to them. They need to be exposed for what they are.

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.

Now, quite simply, they should be allowed to eat the fecal matter that forced down the throats of everyone who disagreed with them when they were in control.

The Republican majority Senate will do what the hell it wants and the Democrat minority will shut the hell up. By the Democrats’ own damn rules.

If Obama gave a flying damn about the unity of the United States that he has so fractured and broken that on the Republican side we have Donald Trump and on the Democratic side we have socialist Bernie Sanders, he would yield in this election year and allow the incoming president to nominate a Justice with the support of a majority of the people.

But Obama DOESN’T give a flying damn about uniting America. That was, as I pointed out only months into his dishonest presidency, merely one of his signature lies.

And Barack Obama just officially DISQUALIFIED himself from having ANY right to nominate Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement by his pretty, cheap, and depraved refusal to honor that great man.

I think it’s beyond safe to say that were it Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s funeral, Barak Obama would have bothered to at least pretend he is a legitimate president and shown up.

But Obama is a rabid ideologue, so the demons that control every move he makes would not allow him to step into that cathedral to honor Justice Antonin Scalia.

For the record, I actually have far more respect for BOTH Ginsburg (whose opinions I despise) as WELL as Scalia (whose opinions I affirmed): because both of them were able to do what Barack Obama has NEVER ONE SINGLE TIME IN HIS LIFE been able to do; they were able to look past their differences and find the things they held in common and unite as dear friends around those things. That says a lot to praise about both of these figures.

Just as it says a lot about just how petty and vindictive a figure Barack Obama is.

Antonin Scalia believed that “there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country.” But Barack Obama is a malignant narcissist blasphemer who believes that HE is God and that to serve anyone or anything BUT Obama is sin.

The funeral is over. Obama never bothered to show up. Because Obama is a disgrace to the presidency and a disgrace to the United States of America that Justice Antonin Scalia spent his life faithfully serving. And even Ruth Bader Ginsburg would affirm that fact.

I write this the night before the Supreme Court releases its decision on ObamaCare, obviously not knowing how the SCOTUS will rule.

Will the SCOTUS overturn the entire law? I think so, in the sense that the Democrats who rammed the disgraceful takeover of our health care system could have placed a severability clause in it, but didn’t. One of the Justices (Scalia, in my memory) famously asked just how on earth they could be expected to divide this 2,700 page monstrosity up if they were to decide to overturn part of it and keep part of it.

On the other hand, The Supreme Court seems to have a penchant for deciding as little as possible and ruling as narrowly as possible – which guarantees that the same issues will come before them again and again and again. If you are a fan of the SCOTUS, you might argue that this is because they don’t want to involve the Court in important issues which ought to be decided by the elected branches. But if that’s true, why bother to even take up these cases with decisions that decide almost nothing? On the other hand, if you are a SCOTUS skeptic, you might well conclude that the Supreme Court never issues bold decisions so it can have job security.

The court issues so many narrow decisions that merely force them to issue subsequent narrow decisions on basically the same damn cases ad nauseam.

An example of this was the Arizona SB 1070 Law. By keeping the major provision and overturning the other three, you ended up with a joke of a system in which the states get to demand immigration papers and the suspects get to refuse to show them their immigration papers. Antonin Scalia’s frustration over the near-useless ruling which guarantees that immigration will remain a mess would have been funny if the situation wasn’t such a travesty. His harshest remark may have been:

The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

So, while I am believing the Court will issue a bold decision and overturn ObamaCare simply because it will create a genuine disaster if it overturns the mandate (the funding mechanism) but leaves the rest of the law that forces trillions in spending intact – or even worse, leaving the mandate intact and choosing some other details to quibble over – I recognize that such a decision is how the SCOTUS normally does business.

The Doctor Patient Medical Association has released a new survey of about 700 doctors, and the results are bleak. Scary bleak. Among other dismal figures, Doctors’ Attitudes on the Future of Medicine: What’s Wrong, Who’s to Blame, and What Will Fix It found that 83% of respondents are contemplating leaving the industry if Obamacare is fully implemented, owing to its disastrous projected consequences. Indeed, they openly blame the healthcare law for their industry’s woes:

KEY FINDINGS
90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

If this isn’t an airtight argument for the repeal of Obamacare, nothing is. When the people providing the actual healthcare are thinking of getting out of the game, the system is clearly broken. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare this month.

The other survey gives us more information on just how rancid physicians think ObamaCare is.

Some screenshots I took from the survey:

And:

So other than the fact that doctors will have less control over medical decisions while government bureaucrats will have far MORE control, and other than the fact that it’s going to escalate the process of driving doctors out of medicine when we ALREADY HAVE A DOCTOR SHORTAGE, ObamaCare is hunky dory.

Well, maybe not so hunky dory. There’s a lot more crap wrong with this ObamaCare turd:

Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare and leader in permanent and locum tenens physician staffing for over 30 years, endorsed the results of a new survey by its parent company that finds that a “D” is the mean grade physicians give the health law, despite its primary intention to reduce the cost of healthcare and provide coverage for the uninsured. Physicians who said they were very knowledgeable about the law were even more negative.

The survey was conducted online from May 25 to June 4, 2012. Invitations for the survey were emailed to physicians who had been placed by Jackson Healthcare staffing companies and those who had not. Respondents were self-selected, with 2,694 physicians completing the survey. (The error range for this survey at the 95-percent confidence level is +/- 1.9 percent.)

In addition, the survey shows 68 percent of American physicians disagree that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare,” will have a positive impact on physician/patient relationship.

Only 12 percent of physicians said the law provides needed healthcare reform. A majority of physicians said the ACA would not improve healthcare’s quality, rising costs or patients’ control over their own health care. They also said it would worsen the amount of control physicians have over their practice decisions.

The only positive rating physicians gave the ACA was related to access. Fifty-four percent of respondents said the new law will increase patients’ access to care. The health law is estimated to drive 13 million new Medicaid enrollees beginning in 2014.

“Physician opinions are important since they are a primary driver of healthcare decisions and costs,” said Richard L. Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, a national healthcare staffing company. “Overall, they believe the law does not meet its intended objectives, negatively impacts the patient-physician relationship and hinders their ability to control the treatment of their patients.”

One important provision in the law set to take effect next year is the Independent Payment Advisory Board charged with finding savings in Medicare. Sixty-four percent of physicians said it would have a negative impact on patient care.

Among other key survey findings:

70 percent said ACA would not stem rising healthcare costs.

66 percent said ACA would give physicians less control over their practice decisions.

61 percent said ACA would not improve the quality of healthcare.

55 percent said Congress should scrap ACA and start over.

49 percent said ACA would give patients less control over their healthcare.

35 percent said it did nothing to reform healthcare.

31 percent said ACA didn’t go far enough and a single-payer system is needed.

22 percent said ACA went too far and impedes a physician’s ability to practice medicine.

“Improving the quality of patient care and managing rising healthcare costs are undoubtedly the two biggest issues facing physician practices today, and this survey certainly indicates the new health law is doing little to address these key challenges,” said Tony Stajduhar, president of the Permanent Recruitment Division, Jackson & Coker. “With a shortage of physicians already projected in the coming years, especially among permanent physicians, we need to actively engage this key group in discussions regarding healthcare reform that will bring about impactful changes in our current healthcare system―in turn, positively influencing recruitment and retention within this profession.”

According to a statement, “Jackson & Coker believes that all hospitals, clinics, physician practices, and patients should have access to a physician whether for a day, a lifetime, or any of life’s changes in between. For over three decades, Jackson & Coker has been uniting physicians and hospitals to ensure that all patients’ needs are met by providing physicians for as little as a day and as long as a lifetime. The firm specializes in doctor opportunities for physicians at any stage of their professional career. Headquartered in metro Atlanta, the physician recruitment firm has earned a reputation for placing exceptionally qualified candidates in commercial and government practice opportunities. Recruiters work in two divisions of the company: Permanent Placement, which places providers in over 40 medical specialties in permanent placement jobs, and locum tenens, a staffing model that recruits medical providers (physicians and CRNAs) for temporary vacancies. Jackson & Coker’s in-house client credentialing specialists perform comprehensive credentialing services that adhere to the highest industry standards, with a dedicated individual for each specialty team.”

The “Obama Akbar!” liberals who most support ObamaCare frankly don’t care if it is evil and will kill people by medical neglect. In fact, the worse it is, and the more people die because of ObamaCare, the better – because that would lead to the next step in liberal’s most cherished dreams of a state-controlled society. Because the sad, pathetic, tragic fact of the matter is that the bigger and more intrusive government becomes and the more wildly said government fails, the more essential still bigger and still more intrusive government becomes. If a small, limited government that conservatives yearn for has a crisis, most people aren’t gravely impacted. If you have the sort of giant government bureaucracy that liberals dream of and it has a crisis, people will suffer by the hundreds of millions. If we had a catastrophic collapse of the government – and believe me, one is coming SOON – you can rest assured that millions of frightened, hungry people would demand the government step in and help them – which is precisely what liberals want. The system crashes, liberals seize power, and they never look back. And it won’t even MATTERthat they were the ones who created the collapse in the first place. We’ve already seen this story before.

Update, 6/28/12: Well I was wrong – and very right. SCOTUS issued one of its quibbling decisions in which it played around with the regime’s draconian Medicaid threats against the states while asserting that the mandate was a tax even though Obama and the Democrat Party swore up one side and down the other that it was NOT a tax. But overall, as long as you play bait-and-switch and arbitrarily declare what Obama and Congress said was not a tax to be a tax, it’s “constitutional.” All the Supreme Court had to do to not be “activist” in Democrat demagoguery was to rewrite the clear intent of the law to use the Commerce Clause rather than Congress’ taxing powers. Which of course is pretty damned activist, isn’t it?

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase. It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact. And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying. Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

You have to imagine it: the left thought and thought and thought about their ObamaCare date with the Supreme Court. In their little feral minds they had all the witty one-liners that simply stumped the conservative judges. Sadly for them, reality happened. And all of their fabulous arguments turned out to be a giant, stinking load of crap which blew up in their faces the moment the justices started asking questions.

The funny thing is that most of the questions that have them so stumped and panicked were the same questions that conservatives were asking all along. Only the left somehow never bothered to have an honest argument with us about the inherent fascism of ObamaCare. So even though they could have listened to us and maybe actually prepared some kind of response, they were left wildly unprepared.

I’ve found that again and again in my exchanges with liberals on this blog. It’s like I can make the same point five times and even count each time I make that same point and they just pretend I didn’t make it so they can keep living in their freaky little world of circular reasoning.

And I also found this same phenomenon to be the case when I was in seminary. In several of my exegesis courses, students were required to choose commentaries from two separate lists – one basically conservative evangelical, and the other liberal – and write our papers specifically taking into account arguments made by both schools of thought. What I found in every single case was that the conservative evangelicals painstakingly reproduced the arguments of their liberal counterparts and attempted to show why their own argument was the correct one over against the liberals’ arguments; whereas the liberals either entirely ignored (most of the time) or presented a dismissive straw-man of the conservative evangelical commentators.

I took a couple of courses from William Lane Craig – a brilliant scholar who became famous for his debates with top atheists. Dr. Craig was a gracious man who would have his lunch at a table with students so he could share his time and knowledge with students who greatly valued both. I asked Bill Craig about his debates, and he told me that he painstakingly studied up on the works of his opponents, whereas he often had the idea that they simply showed up completely ignorant of his own writings. And he routinely mopped the floor with them.

I still remember a particular debate between Craig and Oxford chemist Peter Atkins. In one exchange toward the end of the debate, Craig provided a statement of what a now very harried Atkins had said. Atkins arrogantly literally said, “Those aren’t my words. My words are much too sophisticated, much too erudite…” And a frankly appalled Bill Craig said, “I was reading a direct quote.” And Atkins’ jaw slammed shut. You should also understand that Craig’s argument dealt with the numerous scientific and logical facts that demonstrated that the universe was created by an intelligent designer; Atkins’ argument centered on pure metaphysical speculation that there are myriad alternate realities and that the fact that our reality would appear to have been the product of design was merely by sheer random chance. The entire debate was thus a remarkable turnaround in which the philosopher-theologian (Craig) relied on science and facts and the “scientist” (Atkins) relied on purely-faith-based speculation.

Justice Scalia’s point is a commonsense repetition of Justice Kennedy’s basic question: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Or, can you force citizens to purchase something just so you can regulate them?

The people most under assault by this law are those who HAVEN’T purchased insurance. The ObamaCare mandate is all about forcing people to purchase insurance just so liberals can then dictate what insurance they must purchase.

The guy who uploaded this to YouTube calls it a “benchslap.” It’s loads of fun, and the point about limited powers will sound familiar. The key part comes early when Scalia jumps in to challenge Verrilli’s citation of Court precedent. Those cases dealt with commerce, he says; in this case, the legislation is aimed at people who aren’t participating in commerce, i.e. people without insurance. That’s a gut-punch to the left since, once you make that move conceptually, the Commerce Clause defense of the statute is hanging by a thread. You can follow his thinking over the rest of the clip from there. If it’s not commerce, then Congress has no power to regulate it, and if Congress has no power to regulate it, then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states. And to think, a few days ago, Democrats thought they might be able to use Scalia’s Raich opinion to swing him over to their side.

Roberts was a bit more equivocal in today’s arguments but read Philip Klein’s analysis of the rhetoric he used in his comments from the bench. There were an awful lot of phrases in there suggesting he was arguing from belief against the statute, not merely as a devil’s advocate to probe the lawyers’ arguments. Meanwhile, over at SCOTUSblog, Kevin Russell looks at Roberts’s and Alito’s questioning and wonders, “Is Kennedy the only possible fifth vote for the government?” His conclusion: Yep, pretty much. Exit question: C’mon, a Reagan appointee’s not really going to be the fifth vote for the ObamaCare mandate, is he? Good lord.

The Obama regime already appears to be preparing for defeat, given that they are already talking down the Supreme Court as a biased body, which leaves you asking: does that mean if ObamaCare WINSin court the American people should just disregard the verdict as “biased”?

During the Court’s hearing oral arguments I heard over and over again – even from Ruth Bader Ginsburg – that the “conservative” thing to do would be to keep the law. Because only the same liberals who would utterly clueless about the questions they would be getting from conservative justices actualy understand “conservatism,” you see. And so of course liberals have to tell us what we should think to be good conservatives the same way they constantly have to tell their own zombie-followers what to think.

The liberals’ “logic” is actually rather funny: if liberals vote like liberals it’s perfectly fine; but if conservatives vote according to conservative principles it’s “biased.” Nobody would think the four liberals ruling as goose-step-marching liberals is biased, of course.

In a nutshell: Sonia Sotomayor is an activist judge whose decisions have nearly always been overturned by the very Court to which she aspires, as well as a judge who has expressed racist views.

Let us begin with her racist views.

Have you ever seen the statue representing justice? Ever notice that “Lady Justice” is wearing a blindfold?

Lady Justice wears the blindfold so that she will NOT be biased by what her eyes see. She will not notice the race, the gender, the religion, or any other such factor. Instead, she will balance each case before her with the scales of justice, as determined by the law.

We immediately discover that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has no resemblance whatsoever to Lady Justice. As CNN provides:

At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:

“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that – it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….

“Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Judge Sotomayor has ripped the blindfold off, and makes race and gender major focal points of her view of “justice.” That she feels that a Latina woman is able to reach a “better conclusion” than a white male is simply racist.

Imagine for a single nanosecond that a white man said, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.” Imagine the OUTRAGE. Her statement is every bit as racist; but it is radically leftist, and so it is ignored for any purpose of criticism.

What about the scales of justice that Lady Justice uses to weigh cases?

Sonia Sotomayor lacks proper scales, as well. She certainly lacks impartiality, by her own acknowledgment.

In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where “policy is made.” She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.” [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spring05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm%5D

Should judges legislate from the bench? Should they make policy? Sotomayor clearly acknowledges her view, even as she recognizes how radical and wrong it is, and therefore says the pro forma things to cover her arse.

She uses her position on the bench to impose her views upon the law, to make policy rather than allow the legislative branch to make policy and issue verdicts on the basis of the laws that are written.

“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Amazingly, this statement has been attacked by the left. That is because they want a judge to be able to change the color or shape of the baseballs, or change the size or length of the bats, or subjectively alter the way the game is called. And they believe that a judge should be able to call the game in a way that favors one chosen side over another (using their “empathy” or their preference for a particular race, for example). Because THEY are the side that features the activists judges who will do those things to favor leftists causes and arguments.

Justice Scalia, in his response to ACLU president Nadine Strossen’s favoring judicial activism and finding opinions in foreign law that corresponded with the verdicts they wanted to impose, said:

“Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court… And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.”

Because the left would howl in unholy outrage if rightwing justices abandoned the Constitution the way the left have and imposed their own views and sought their own sources to justify their subjective rulings. If you’re on the left, imagine how you would feel if a far right judge invoked sharia law to suppress the homosexual agenda, and you’ll understand how conservatives feel about judicial activists invoking European law to promote it. We didn’t place ourselves under the authority of European law; we placed ourselves under our very own Constitution.

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

But this ISN’T the oath that Sonia Sotomayor will hold herself to. Rather, she will pull off the blindfold, and judge cases by race and by gender. And she will “make policy” rather than follow the law.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “empathy” as the defining quality of of our Supreme Court Justices. I don’t hear him lamenting that a Latina woman isn’t on the bench due to her superior wisdom over his own (as a white man). I don’t hear him praising Sotomayor’s desire to “make policy” from the bench. In fact, what I hear Jefferson doing is rolling in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s and Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

Finally, Sotomayor doesn’t make good law. Too many times, her activist decisions have been overturned. Of the cases in which she ruled that went before the US Supreme Court, Sotomayor has been reversed fully five out of six times. And the one time she WASN’T reversed, her reasoning was unanimously faulted by every single justice:

Sonia Sotomayor is a judge who has been humiliated with an 8-0 smackdown of her judicial reasoning.

And the case that is “pending review” – Ricci v. DeStefano (aka the New Haven firefighter case), is precisely the sort of terrible and racist reasoning that should demonstrate how unfit for the highest court in the land Sonia Sotomayor truly is.

Mr. Ricci’s saga started in 2003. At the time, he was one of more than 100 firemen who took a written and oral exam that the New Haven Fire Department (NHFD) administered in order to determine whom it would promote to fill 15 openings for lieutenant and captain positions. In preparation for the test, Ricci, a dyslexic who struggles with reading and retaining information, simply outworked most of his competition. He spent more than $1,000 to purchase books that the city had recommended as useful study guides, and he studied for 8 to 13 hours each day. When the test scores were ultimately tabulated, Ricci’s name was near the top of the list. The promotion should have been his.

It didn’t happen that way. It soon emerged that New Haven’s black firefighters, on average, had performed quite poorly on the same test that Ricci had aced. In fact, not a single African American had scored high enough to qualify for a promotion. When word of this got around, a number of local black leaders with political influence thundered that the exam itself was to blame, arguing alternately that it was racially biased on the one hand, and a poor predictor of an applicant’s potential to fulfill the duties of a leadership position on the other.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Roberts was talking about in his analogy. We had a law in place; we had a universally recognized system of promotion. One man, in particular, tried to work as hard as he could within the rules that were supposed to be for everyone, and aced the exam. But Sonia Sotomayor decided she didn’t like the results, and so she changed the rules quite literally after the game had already been played.

Let’s demand a justice who rules according to the law without prejudice rather than a justice who makes prejudice a basis for her rulings. Let’s demand a justice who understands that she is under the rule of law rather than a justice who uses the legal system to “make policy.”

We don’t need another radical in robes.

The American people have enough black-robed masters and government bureaucrats imposing their will upon us in blatant disregard of the intent of the Constitution which is supposed to be our source of law. We have enough officials who conflate their own power and explode the size and role of government as master over every sphere of our lives. We can do far better than Sonia Sotomayor.

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Back in November, when asked what kind of Supreme Court Justice he wanted, Obama said:

I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.

. . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

Is that what being a Supreme Court Justice should mean? Taking the little guy’s side against the big guy? Taking the outsider’s side, such that we use the power of law to bring the outsiders inside? Having “empathy” toward liberal voting blocs? Why should it even matter if the law is on the rich and powerful guy’s side?

Kelly Long, of the Judicial Confirmation Network, said in response to Obama’s statement today:

“What he means is, he wants empathy for one side, and what’s wrong with that is it is being partial rather than impartial.

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

In other words, Roberts 100% disagrees with Obama: being a Supreme Court Justice is not at all about having “empathy” or taking the little guy’s side; it is about following the Constitution and ruling in accordance to what the founders who wrote it intended. Something has to ground our laws. And the purely subjective opinions of nine unelected lawyers should not be what anchors this nation.

We find out something: as much as liberals want to argue that Bush trounced the Constitution, it is THEY who frankly could care less about the Constitution.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Only 29% of Obama supporters agree that justices should rule on what is in the Constitution. That is absolutely terrifying.

It is conservatives who care about the Constitution. Liberals only care about what they want, and whatever ends justify whatever means. And if the Constitution doesn’t support what they want, so much the worse for the Constitution.

That’s why liberal judges can mysteriously find penumbras and emanations supporting the “Constitutional” right to abortion, and simultaneously deny the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is the prototype of the liberal justice, said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

The problem with this view is that one can literally do whatever one wants as a Justice without any guide but one’s own desires or convictions. And yet that is the essence of Obama’s philosophy. All kinds of horrors have resulted from this approach.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, likely the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ignored the overwhelmingly clear mandate of the Constitution in favor of a desired outcome. In writing his dissent to this despicable example of judicial tyranny, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean” (Dred Scott 60 U.S. 621 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

Similarly, in the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, the activist Supreme Court upheld the executive orders of FDR requiring forced internment of some 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent in clear violation of the plain sense of the 5th Amendments prohibitions against deprivation of life liberty, or property without due process.

Activist judges have repeatedly throughout history justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text. Let’s not forget that it was Democrats who fought to impose slavery, and it was judicial activists who bound the country up with laws that took the bloodiest war in American history to overcome.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “empathy” as the defining quality of of our Supreme Court Justices. In fact, I hear him turning in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

Not that Obama cares one bit about what Jefferson realized about the stupidity and folly of judicial activism two centuries ago. That would be honoring the original intent of our incredibly wise founding fathers, and liberals like Obama won’t have any of that.

Antonin Scalia and Nadine Strossen debated over the strict constructivist approach, which honors the founding fathers’ view of the Constitution; versus the “living document” approach, which enables justices to impose their will on the Constitution. A partial transcript of their debate is available.

Toward the end of the transcript, Scalia said this:

Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court… And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

Imagine if “rightwing” justices bought into the “living document” view of liberals, abandoned their historical interpretation of the Constitution, and began to start seeking “penumbras and emanations” justifying whatever laws they wanted to impose upon society. Liberals, just imagine for a moment what they would do to society by basing their decisions not upon the Constitution and the law but upon whatever they felt like doing based upon their ideology.

Liberal activist judges love to turn to foreign law to “inform” their rulings. So let’s see a hardcore rightwing justice start referring to sharia to “inform” his rulings against women and homosexuals. Let’s see how the left feels if the right uses their own “legal reasoning” against them to impose a rabid moral view in the name of and with the force of law. One thing is sure: no matter how far such a rightwing judge might go, it is yet unlikely he would go as far as the left did against babies.

The farther Obama pushes the envelope toward liberal judicial activism, the greater the ultimate backlash will be when the worm turns. And if the economy tanks or we are hit by terrorists, the worm WILL turn to the right.

We don’t know who Obama will appoint to fill the Souter vacancy, but the one thing we DO know is that his pick will be a disgrace to the Constitution.

What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? A lot of people are frankly pretty apolitical and frankly don’t know a lot about the two parties. I am a conservative and a Republican, but I would like to try to provide at least the accurate essence of what Democrats believe in before offering the Republican counter.

I understand that many people are not particularly involved in politics until major elections. It is not a matter of ignorance, but rather a matter of being occupied with raising children and running households. When an election rolls around, many people want to make the right decisions for themselves and for their country, but become bogged down in a morass of partisan claims and counter-claims.

The truth is, Democrats and Republicans differ on nearly everything today. But let me focus on three categories – social policy, domestic policy, and foreign policy – and try to describe a few key differences.